Got a tip for us?
Let us know
Become a MacRumors Supporter for $50/year with no ads, ability to filter front page stories, and private forums.
13" 2.26GHz or 2.54GHz?
- Thread starter crisito
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
Sorry. I meant that the 2.54 GHz is faster than the 2.4 GHz MacBook that I have.
Now leaning towards the 2.53 GHz...
If more or less future proofing that you have the best at the time. What if it runs better down the line, what if you want to sell it, what if
But actually, no one is future proofed. If so, everyone would have decked out 2009 24" iMacs Mac Pros. And new Macs come out every year anyway. I'd just like to have the faster processor and okay HD space. 250 is plenty for me. I'm only using about 30 at most.
Doing the same as you, I am looking into the new Corsair and G.Skill which both have cache and seem to work well with the Macbooks. Cant upgrade firmware I do not think. I know the G.Skill supports TRIM.
Now leaning towards the 2.53 GHz...
This is how I think of it: You don't want to buy the slower machine, EVEN if it doesn't make that much of a difference, and then later on wish you would have gotten the faster one. Go with the 2.53. I got it, and am certain I will never have to re-think it.
Exactly, except the better battery life might actually be with the faster processor, (2.53). Look here, both have the same TDP, but the 2.53 would seem to operate (or able to operate) at a lower core voltage when compared to the 2.26 ( 1.050V vs 1.00V) Also, note that Apple battery test (per Apple specs) was taken using the 2.53 ("13-inch MacBook Pro testing conducted by Apple in May 2009 using preproduction 2.53GHz Intel Core 2 Duo-based MacBook Pro units") From this it would seem that the 2.53 will actually offer more efficiency, speed, and battery life compared to an equally configured 2.26.
--
Attachments
I was trying to decide whether to go with the 2.26GHz or 2.53GHz model too, and I finally decided on the 2.26GHz.
Why I picked the 2.26? To save up extra cash until late 2009 to upgrade to an SSD and Snow Leopard.
An SSD and Snow Leopard (and possibly 4GB of RAM if needed) will be far more rewarding than a minor clock boost. The $300 spent on the 2.53GHz model could be doubled to pay for an SSD drive in the future (assuming they become cheaper).
The 2.26GHz processor can do everything the 2.53GHz processor can do, anyways. The computer is already a fantastic piece of machinery. 64-bit processor, dual core, what more could you ask for? With the power-boost from Snow Leopard and the SSD, it'll be even better.
Why I picked the 2.26? To save up extra cash until late 2009 to upgrade to an SSD and Snow Leopard.
An SSD and Snow Leopard (and possibly 4GB of RAM if needed) will be far more rewarding than a minor clock boost. The $300 spent on the 2.53GHz model could be doubled to pay for an SSD drive in the future (assuming they become cheaper).
The 2.26GHz processor can do everything the 2.53GHz processor can do, anyways. The computer is already a fantastic piece of machinery. 64-bit processor, dual core, what more could you ask for? With the power-boost from Snow Leopard and the SSD, it'll be even better.
The difference in price between the two is $300. If you buy 4GB of 1066 MHz RAM and a 250 GB notebook hard drive, that will cost you about $140. So, the difference in cost between the two types of 13" MacBook Pros is really $160. For $160 you are getting 270 MHz of additional processing power. The question is, for $160 is that bump in speed justified? Also, in all likelihood, most people will upgrade to a 320 GB or 500 GB hard drive which costs more, so your real savings are going to be less than $140.
IMHO, you should go with the 2.53 GHz as the processor is hard to upgrade, provided you plan on keeping this laptop for 3+ years.
IMHO, you should go with the 2.53 GHz as the processor is hard to upgrade, provided you plan on keeping this laptop for 3+ years.
If he gets a new Mac now, he'll only have to pat $10 for Snow Leopard. The said it on the Keynote.
I got the 2.26 model and here is why, $300 for minor, very minor 270MHz bump will never ever be noticed, getting a 7200 RPM HDD and 4GB for around 160$ is more then worth it. You can do what you want, but I would suggest to save your money and get 2.26 model and just add RAM you will not see the difference at all never you would know. But get what you want and enjoy
and enjoyThe processor speed is not going to make much of a difference at all, unless you value specs.
I got the 2.26 model, added 4GB of RAM for 60.00 and a 320GB 7200 RPM 16MB cache drive for another 60. So I paid 1099.00 for the 13.3 base MBP with my discount, plus another 120.00 I have a machine that is just as good and feels faster than that 2.53 due to a faster hard drive.
I saved 180.00 by not getting the 2.53 and got a larger, faster hard drive that will give me a noticeable speed increase vs. that of the slight bump in mhz the 2.53 has.
In my opinion 270mhz is not worth 170.00 dollars. I think it's kind of funny that people think 270mhz is going to future proof one over the other. Let's be honest, if 2.26 is not capable of running some App or OS in the future, either is 2.53. Not to mention I'll have sold this before that even matters.
I got the 2.26 model, added 4GB of RAM for 60.00 and a 320GB 7200 RPM 16MB cache drive for another 60. So I paid 1099.00 for the 13.3 base MBP with my discount, plus another 120.00 I have a machine that is just as good and feels faster than that 2.53 due to a faster hard drive.
I saved 180.00 by not getting the 2.53 and got a larger, faster hard drive that will give me a noticeable speed increase vs. that of the slight bump in mhz the 2.53 has.
In my opinion 270mhz is not worth 170.00 dollars. I think it's kind of funny that people think 270mhz is going to future proof one over the other. Let's be honest, if 2.26 is not capable of running some App or OS in the future, either is 2.53. Not to mention I'll have sold this before that even matters.
In the 1st year of owning this machine, IMO, it would not be worth upgrading the machine to keep the warranty intact. And yes I know Apple may not care, but your results may vary for warranty work. For me, I am not interested in replacing components in the 1st year while under warranty simply because this laptop is priced over $1000. I will not buy Applecare for this product and then upgrade later. That said, I need a bigger HD and more RAM now as it makes a performance difference that I see on my 2.0 GHz C2D Mac Mini.
The CPUs have the same bus speed, therefore C2D:
2.26 x 2 = 4.52 GHz
2.53 x 2 = 5.06 GHz
(5.06 - 4.52) / 4.52 = 12%
The 2.53 GHz CPU is 12% faster than the first one. If the cost difference is $160, the real question would be is 12% faster CPU performance worth it?
2.26 x 2 = 4.52 GHz
2.53 x 2 = 5.06 GHz
(5.06 - 4.52) / 4.52 = 12%
The 2.53 GHz CPU is 12% faster than the first one. If the cost difference is $160, the real question would be is 12% faster CPU performance worth it?
I got the 2.53, mostly out of laziness. Comes with the extra ram stock which I wanted, and a larger HD is nice because I put Windows 7 on a fairly sizable bootcamp partition (so that I could put my music on the windows bootcamp partition and share it with the xbox).
Also, it does feel nice to know you have the higher end model.
As far as the actual processor difference, I don't think it's all that noticeable. I never max out my cpu anyway.
Also, it does feel nice to know you have the higher end model.
As far as the actual processor difference, I don't think it's all that noticeable. I never max out my cpu anyway.
That 12% in real world performance is not quite a 1:1 IMO. It all depends, for what I do on this I wouldn't need the extra mhz, but maybe someone encoding or doing some design work needs every mhz they can get.
But just because the math equals a 12% difference doesn't mean it's a direct reflection on what the user will gain in terms of performance.
Also that extra cash I saved resulted in a much faster hard drive, and larger hard drive, which is also going to negate that 12% increase in CPU performance with an increase in HD and overall system performance.
My point is the money savings and an upgrade are what make the base line so appealing.
I prefer the HD performance gain, someone else may prefer the 270mhz CPU. The 7200RPM/16MB cache drives feel very zippy. Bottom line here is the Macbook Pro 13.3" kicks ass, this thing is just what I was looking for. I got this and sold my Macbook Pro 15" 2.2 Core 2 Duo, the older style.
Of course someone looking to burn some cash could get the 2.53 AND the 7200RPM drive and have the best of both worlds.
I'm bored
But just because the math equals a 12% difference doesn't mean it's a direct reflection on what the user will gain in terms of performance.
Also that extra cash I saved resulted in a much faster hard drive, and larger hard drive, which is also going to negate that 12% increase in CPU performance with an increase in HD and overall system performance.
My point is the money savings and an upgrade are what make the base line so appealing.
I prefer the HD performance gain, someone else may prefer the 270mhz CPU. The 7200RPM/16MB cache drives feel very zippy. Bottom line here is the Macbook Pro 13.3" kicks ass, this thing is just what I was looking for. I got this and sold my Macbook Pro 15" 2.2 Core 2 Duo, the older style.
Of course someone looking to burn some cash could get the 2.53 AND the 7200RPM drive and have the best of both worlds.
I'm bored
Like pointed out in the thread get the higher speed configuration, well can't upgrade the CPU later but can upgrade the RAM and hard disk for sure. One more thing any amount of speed increase is significant specially when you don't have the option of bumping up that speed later. You don't have to be a gamer to appreciate a little mhz speed increase, ripping audio/video, playing HD content, higher speed CPU translates to snappier/ faster OS and that what all of us want, I guess.
from this test, it looks cpu higher than 2.2 Ghz won't help much on gaming.
so 2.26GHz should be enough for you since you even don't play game.
http://vr-zone.com/articles/effects-of-cpu-frequency-on-fps-single-gtx-280-/7160.html?doc=7160
so 2.26GHz should be enough for you since you even don't play game.
http://vr-zone.com/articles/effects-of-cpu-frequency-on-fps-single-gtx-280-/7160.html?doc=7160